![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
This is the reason that people need to vote. People need to vote so that people like this don't win elected offices.
I'm objective about political ads. They don't upset me. I don't discount other viewpoints out of hand. Expressing an array of opinions is important to create a public dialogue whereby we can try to find the best approach to issues affecting us.
I'm less open-minded about public policy when it comes to social issues. Objections to civil rights for LGBT people are generally a stance based on religious faith. Faith is something that should never directly inform public policy. Morality should. If that morality is formed by faith, that's fine. It doesn't have to be. Public policy should be based on rational things. Costs and benefits to the public, whether in terms of economics, health, education, or other things.
Here is a candidate for president openly standing on a platform based on faith and saying that gay people serving open in the military is part of something that's wrong with this country. Where is the rational objection to this coming from? It's entirely based on faith. A belief that a divinity has said that he, and other straight Christians, are better than gay people. That they shouldn't have to associate with them. And if they *do* have to, those gay people should have the decency to hide the fact.
People will argue that he's not saying gays serving openly in the military is a bad thing. That he's just putting it in context with other discriminated groups. Saying group A gets something they want; why can't group B get something they want? That's bullshit. There are any number of other examples he could have used. "Why do Spanish-speakers get to have documents written in Spanish when group B doesn't get XYZ" for example. He picked gays serving openly in the military because he wants a very clear subtext in this message that he is opposed to open military service for LGBT people. He's framing it in terms of it being an unwanted concession. And putting it directly after his comment about not being ashamed to 'admit' he's a Christian makes it clear that this is coming from a position of faith.
Speaking of this 'admission' of his Christianity, isn't it just absurd that he's characterizing Christians as an oppressed group? Christianity is one of the most populous religions in the country. There are Christian churches everywhere. There are many Christians in positions of power in the public and private spheres. Christian charitable groups regularly receive large amounts of government funding. Christians are not persecuted.
If they were, they might not be able to practice Christmas openly. That's a claim that's even more absurd. Children are not allowed to practice Christmas openly, he says. What the hell is he talking about? Christmas decorations are up in stores before Thanksgiving is even over and Christmas music and movies play every-damn-where for nearly a month, but children aren't allowed to celebrate Christmas openly? Where is that idea coming from? It's an appeal to feelings of persecution and xenophobia in a country that's becoming more diverse. Diversity means change, and change is scary, but it's *not* bad!
It takes a lot to make me angry. This makes me angry. It does no good to make personal attacks against someone, and I'm trying not to do so here. But I feel personally attacked by this ad. I am angered. How can someone expect to win the general election, even if this kind of rhetoric wins the primary, when he's on record with this kind of uninformed, homophobic message? Does openly saying that all those gay people need to go back to hiding who they are really make you electable on a national level?
I am just so upset by this man. I want to go door to door and show people this ad on my laptop. I want to see people denounce this kind of hurtful rhetoric as unworthy of the best ideals of our country. I want to take action to see that Rick Perry, and other people with a strongly socially-conservative ideology, do not make it into an office where they can take rights away from minority groups. Our flavour of democracy should never be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It should *preserve* rights, not destroy them.
I'm objective about political ads. They don't upset me. I don't discount other viewpoints out of hand. Expressing an array of opinions is important to create a public dialogue whereby we can try to find the best approach to issues affecting us.
I'm less open-minded about public policy when it comes to social issues. Objections to civil rights for LGBT people are generally a stance based on religious faith. Faith is something that should never directly inform public policy. Morality should. If that morality is formed by faith, that's fine. It doesn't have to be. Public policy should be based on rational things. Costs and benefits to the public, whether in terms of economics, health, education, or other things.
Here is a candidate for president openly standing on a platform based on faith and saying that gay people serving open in the military is part of something that's wrong with this country. Where is the rational objection to this coming from? It's entirely based on faith. A belief that a divinity has said that he, and other straight Christians, are better than gay people. That they shouldn't have to associate with them. And if they *do* have to, those gay people should have the decency to hide the fact.
People will argue that he's not saying gays serving openly in the military is a bad thing. That he's just putting it in context with other discriminated groups. Saying group A gets something they want; why can't group B get something they want? That's bullshit. There are any number of other examples he could have used. "Why do Spanish-speakers get to have documents written in Spanish when group B doesn't get XYZ" for example. He picked gays serving openly in the military because he wants a very clear subtext in this message that he is opposed to open military service for LGBT people. He's framing it in terms of it being an unwanted concession. And putting it directly after his comment about not being ashamed to 'admit' he's a Christian makes it clear that this is coming from a position of faith.
Speaking of this 'admission' of his Christianity, isn't it just absurd that he's characterizing Christians as an oppressed group? Christianity is one of the most populous religions in the country. There are Christian churches everywhere. There are many Christians in positions of power in the public and private spheres. Christian charitable groups regularly receive large amounts of government funding. Christians are not persecuted.
If they were, they might not be able to practice Christmas openly. That's a claim that's even more absurd. Children are not allowed to practice Christmas openly, he says. What the hell is he talking about? Christmas decorations are up in stores before Thanksgiving is even over and Christmas music and movies play every-damn-where for nearly a month, but children aren't allowed to celebrate Christmas openly? Where is that idea coming from? It's an appeal to feelings of persecution and xenophobia in a country that's becoming more diverse. Diversity means change, and change is scary, but it's *not* bad!
It takes a lot to make me angry. This makes me angry. It does no good to make personal attacks against someone, and I'm trying not to do so here. But I feel personally attacked by this ad. I am angered. How can someone expect to win the general election, even if this kind of rhetoric wins the primary, when he's on record with this kind of uninformed, homophobic message? Does openly saying that all those gay people need to go back to hiding who they are really make you electable on a national level?
I am just so upset by this man. I want to go door to door and show people this ad on my laptop. I want to see people denounce this kind of hurtful rhetoric as unworthy of the best ideals of our country. I want to take action to see that Rick Perry, and other people with a strongly socially-conservative ideology, do not make it into an office where they can take rights away from minority groups. Our flavour of democracy should never be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It should *preserve* rights, not destroy them.